What prompted Anwar Ibrahim to agree to a deal brokered by former Indonesian vice-president Jusuf Kalla that required both the opposition leader and Prime Minister Najib Razak to agree to peaceably accept the results of GE13?
The Wall Street Journal quoted Jusuf Kalla as saying in this weekend's edition of the paper that he faults Anwar for reneging on the deal.
In his defence, Anwar is quoted by the same paper as saying that the terms of the deal were nullified by the manner of the campaign waged by BN - that it had demonised the opposition, tactics that the Jusuf-brokered deal had required the BN to abjure.
It's strange that after all what he has been made to endure in the last 15 years by the powers-that-be - the two trials for sodomy, one for corruption and abuse of power which led to a six-year stay in jail, dissemination of a video showing someone looking like him in a transaction with a sex worker, among a host of other calumnies leveled at him - Anwar could still be credulous enough to believe that Umno-BN can abide by the terms of the deal negotiated by Jusuf.
There was not a little surprise when Najib, in the course of announcing in nationally televised remarks on April 3 the king's consent to the dissolution of Parliament, also let on that his party would abide by the wishes of the electorate and accept a peaceful transfer of power if that was what voters wanted.
Responding for the opposition Pakatan Rakyat that he leads, Anwar the same day welcomed Najib's assurance of a peaceful transition in the event one was decreed by voters.
At that time, there was no way of knowing that these pantomimes were pre-ordained by the terms of a deal worked out by Jusuf Kalla, as reported by Wall Street Journal.
According to Anwar's version of the terms, as reported by the internationally respected paper, Najib had agreed not to demonise the opposition in BN's campaign waged through their doormat mainstream media.
There was in the versions to Wall Street Journal given by the three parties to the deal some stuff about a role for the loser in a reconciliation process that would presumably take place after the vote. But this was rejected by one or the other party.
The Wall Street Journal quoted Jusuf Kalla as saying in this weekend's edition of the paper that he faults Anwar for reneging on the deal.
In his defence, Anwar is quoted by the same paper as saying that the terms of the deal were nullified by the manner of the campaign waged by BN - that it had demonised the opposition, tactics that the Jusuf-brokered deal had required the BN to abjure.
It's strange that after all what he has been made to endure in the last 15 years by the powers-that-be - the two trials for sodomy, one for corruption and abuse of power which led to a six-year stay in jail, dissemination of a video showing someone looking like him in a transaction with a sex worker, among a host of other calumnies leveled at him - Anwar could still be credulous enough to believe that Umno-BN can abide by the terms of the deal negotiated by Jusuf.There was not a little surprise when Najib, in the course of announcing in nationally televised remarks on April 3 the king's consent to the dissolution of Parliament, also let on that his party would abide by the wishes of the electorate and accept a peaceful transfer of power if that was what voters wanted.
Responding for the opposition Pakatan Rakyat that he leads, Anwar the same day welcomed Najib's assurance of a peaceful transition in the event one was decreed by voters.
At that time, there was no way of knowing that these pantomimes were pre-ordained by the terms of a deal worked out by Jusuf Kalla, as reported by Wall Street Journal.
According to Anwar's version of the terms, as reported by the internationally respected paper, Najib had agreed not to demonise the opposition in BN's campaign waged through their doormat mainstream media.
There was in the versions to Wall Street Journal given by the three parties to the deal some stuff about a role for the loser in a reconciliation process that would presumably take place after the vote. But this was rejected by one or the other party.
Concern over power transition
Deals like these are invariably hedged with ambiguity, this one more than others because it was inherently unworkable.
Asking the BN not to demonise the opposition in an election campaign that could well have resulted in their loss of power after a half-century's incumbency, is like distracting the Taliban from their goal of an Islamic emirate in Afghanistan with the idea that they would be better off as farmers growing poppy.
From the Wall Street Journal's story, it could not be inferred with certainty who made the initial approach for a deal - Anwar, Najib or Jusuf.
Jusuf claims it was Anwar who approached him to broker the deal, but Anwar implies that the whole idea of the deal arose from concern in some Asean capitals that a transition of power in Malaysia after GE13 would be prone to violence.
To avert violence, get the two competing coalitions' spearheads, Najib and Anwar, to agree a deal where they would abide by the election's results. Anwar's pre-condition for agreeing to the deal was that BN not demonise the opposition during the campaign.
The curious thing about this aspect of the deal is how did Anwar conclude that broker Jusuf had expertise in seeing to it that the BN abided by its terms?
Apparently, Jusuf had no difficulty in phoning Anwar the day after the election, May 6, to remind him about the opposition leader's "commitment" to accept the results with acquiescent serenity.
But all a perplexed Jusuf got in return, according to the Wall Street Journal, is: "They said, ‘No, no, no.' "
It looks like Anwar has allowed one Bugis, Jusuf Kalla, to get him snookered by another, Najib Razak.
Deals like these are invariably hedged with ambiguity, this one more than others because it was inherently unworkable.
Asking the BN not to demonise the opposition in an election campaign that could well have resulted in their loss of power after a half-century's incumbency, is like distracting the Taliban from their goal of an Islamic emirate in Afghanistan with the idea that they would be better off as farmers growing poppy.
From the Wall Street Journal's story, it could not be inferred with certainty who made the initial approach for a deal - Anwar, Najib or Jusuf.
Jusuf claims it was Anwar who approached him to broker the deal, but Anwar implies that the whole idea of the deal arose from concern in some Asean capitals that a transition of power in Malaysia after GE13 would be prone to violence.
To avert violence, get the two competing coalitions' spearheads, Najib and Anwar, to agree a deal where they would abide by the election's results. Anwar's pre-condition for agreeing to the deal was that BN not demonise the opposition during the campaign.
The curious thing about this aspect of the deal is how did Anwar conclude that broker Jusuf had expertise in seeing to it that the BN abided by its terms?
Apparently, Jusuf had no difficulty in phoning Anwar the day after the election, May 6, to remind him about the opposition leader's "commitment" to accept the results with acquiescent serenity.
But all a perplexed Jusuf got in return, according to the Wall Street Journal, is: "They said, ‘No, no, no.' "
It looks like Anwar has allowed one Bugis, Jusuf Kalla, to get him snookered by another, Najib Razak.
TERENCE NETTO has been a journalist for four decades. He likes the occupation because it puts him in contact with the eminent without being under the necessity to admire them. - Malaysiakini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.